You did see that it's still a small minority that supports such racist nonsense, right?

I fail to see why the presence of a minority of racist idiots means that the USA should sit back idly if said minority again tries to form their own country. You're really comfortable with millions of African-American citizens being ruled over by those kinds of racists? To say nothing of the majority of the white population, who finds such people embarrassing.

I know this is a common, throw-away comment online whenever there's news about this element in the South, but it's just dumb.

I bet that is a higher approval rate than in most continental European countries....tsk tsk.

After all in continental Europe today in the 21st century football stadiums erupt in ape chants and banana peels at black players.

I wonder when the Economist will ever write a story about the European rates of approval for mixed race marriages instead of always taking their cues from the American media to write their story lines.

Come on why doesn't any European country do a poll for mixed race marrages? Too scared? Imagine the horror of those smug Europeans when the South comes out a lot more tolerant.

The point is that in the US, and in the South, the issue of mixed-race marriages are a salient political issue, along with many other ones that people in the North and East of the US may see as backward and ignorant. I hardly think that interracial marriage is a political issue in Europe, however much football fans "erupt" about it (though I'm not European, so correct me if I'm wrong).

The economy, illegal immigration, abortion are political issues but not mixed race marriages and it has never been in recent memory.

Europe now has an immigrant population of over 10% in most countries. How come Germany has no Turkish-German governor of any state? The south already has two governors who are of Indian immigrant background

How come Britain has no British-Indian top political figure whereas the USA already has two very prominent figures of Indian descent who are are being viewed as possible vice-presidential nominees for the republican party - a heart beat away from the presidency.

How come France has no French-Algerian political figures of equal prominence?

If and when polls in Europe are taken of European attitudes towards mixed race marriages, it shock the hell out of them.

Compared to the rest of the world, the South seems to be a lot more tolerant with a 79% approval rate of mixed marrages. It is only when compared to the north it seems less tolerant.

Bringing up Europe in this discussion is irrelevant; I note you did not mention Brazil or Canada, or Hawaii. All this information points out is, while the American "shining city on a hill" may be a lot brighter now then earlier on the slavery -> peonage -> Jim Crow timeline, we still should be shining a lot brighter. Comparing ourselves to flickering beacons elsewhere does not make us better.

On the contrary since this is an European magazine it is very appropriate to ask about European attitudes since this European magazine is finger pointing at the American south's attitudes.

If and when a Canadian or Brazilian newsmagazine starts finger pointing at the American south's attitudes towards mixed race marriages, than of course one can ask about Canadian & Brazilian attitudes.

Europe is in a state of denial about the fact racism is a bigger and much deeper problem with a larger chunk of European society than in the US and finger pointing at the south is a very convenient way of indulging in this denial.

How could the mixing of genes from within one humanity destroy the uniqueness of that humanity? Unique compared to what? The only race is the human race. The rest is social construct. We all know there is superficial diversity within the human race, but creating new mixtures of physical characteristics only means more diversity. Nobody's forcing anyone to marry somebody who looks different from them.

What you seemed to forget is that historically only white people have had the political, economic and social power to adversely impact the lives of those of us who are not white. I am sure there are other groups who probably have the same attitudes as whites on this topic. But only whites have had the power to translate their attitudes into action by discriminating and worse physically harming those who they do not like because of their racial background. That makes a huge difference.

Of course, it would be too intellectually honest and inconvenient to point out that the Democratic Party of that time was the mostly Southern party dominated by right wing conservatives (KKK being a right-extreme wing) who were pro-slavery, anti-civil rights and the Republican Party was the mostly Northerners dominated by progressive and liberal factions that (horrors!) welcomed unions, generous pension benefits, higher taxes, worker's rights, opposed slavery, etc.

Both parties morphed over decades and merged parts of each other to form the current Democratic and Republican Parties. The right wing factions of predominantly white Southern Democrats (who opposed civil rights, desegregation, involved with KKK, etc), the conservative Republicans of the North and the evangelical Christians of the South who became more political merged into and dominate the Republican Party of today, while the liberal "Rockefeller" Republicans of the north and the left wing Democrats of the South who welcomed desegregation and civil rights laws merged and dominate the Democratic party of today.

I am sure they did all this just to confuse the heck out of future generations and allow them to write false narratives to support their own "home team".

Perhaps,... however, individuals with good morals might be inclined to seek education. St Bonaventure, according to Wikipedia, is especially well known for his insistence that the pursuit of truth is part of divine worship.

Opinions like those expressed in the article are, unfortunately, not limited to the deep south but common elsewhere also. They represent a narrow minded approach to life and society especially prevalent among people unwilling to accept realities for what they are preferring instead to believe in fictitious notions that confirm their own prejudices.

True that it is not limited to the deep south, but there is certainly a higher concentration of that narrow mindedness in the deep south. And no wonder, the deep south has always opposed spending more on education and other programs that would open minds. One might suggest that the true reason there is such an anti-tax mentality in the deep south is they (those with the power) do not want minds to be opened. Just like the Taliban, the southern evangelicals want to maintain narrow mindedness as that ensures they can hold on to power.

In other words, while it is correct to say that the South is in many ways an outlying region, as my colleague pointed out yesterday, our perceptions of the region don't determine what it is like or what it might be like in the future.

M.S., I like your colleague's subtle slam against this post. I might have been a little clearer, though. You live in the Netherlands so will never know what the South is or might be like.

Incidentally, I do live (for all intents and purposes) in the South. The last time I heard the word "miscegenation" used was when Homer Stokes yelled it at the Soggy Bottom Boys in the film O Brother, Where Art Thou?

Please, dude. The South wears itself on its sleeve. It takes about 24 hours, one day and one night, with a mix of people and places to learn what the loudest and proudest, and therefore most dominant, sentiments are. It might be more complex than some give credit, but nobody would say it is subtle or nuanced. Anybody with the slightest human perspective from anywhere can get learned real quick on what the South is.

Again, the problem with polls is the difference between revealed and stated preference. Over 90% say they approve of interracial marriage, but less than 2% of black-white marriages. People are probably being politically correct in the North, while they could not give a damn in the South :-)

Good, appropriate and well deserved rebuke of Beth A. with her line of "enslaved blacks who made the rest of us rich".
.
Just wanted to remark that Cubans, who you thought she would like to exclude from the group of slave labor exploiters, had slavery in their island long before and long after it's historically brief existence in North America.
.
The number of black slaves in Cuba and the rest of Latin America by far exceeds anything ever heard of in the USA in this regard.
.
That said, slaves imported to the Americas were not enslaved exactly for that purpose: overwhelming majority of them were born in slavery and sold by their own tribal chieftains to Arab middlemen, who then resold them to Portuguese and Dutch traders, who resold them in Americas.
.
For tens of thousands years slavery was the fundamental institution whereupon the whole of human society reposed - on all continents. Actually, the USA is the country which used this institution during much shorter period than any one else; and the end to it was initiated by Evangelical Christians.
.
"Progressive" chatterboxes evade to mention this fact... but I could be unjust to Beth A. and her ilk. May they be sincerely ignorant?

I have a couple of questions about your colorful view of history, particularly with how you deal with facts that you have chosen to admit.

On the issue of Cuba - you are aware that Cuba was not an independant nation at the time, but still a possession of the Spanish Empire, right? So to say that Cubans had slavery in their island long before and long after it existed in North America (of which Cuba is part) is really a half-truth. The Spaniards ruling Cuba had slavery long before and long after it existed in the 13 colonies and resulting United States. It also ignores the fact that the independence movement of Cuba was linked with anti-slavery revolts. Any thought on those facts?

Yes, it is accurate to say that the number of slaves in Latin America outnumbers the number in the USA. It is also accurate to say that Latin America is far larger than the USA, both in terms of area and population. It makes sense that those areas would have imported more slaves. But really, again, it fails to point out that excepting Brazil, all of Latin America abolished slavery before the US and that for almost all of their history, these areas were ruled by European powers (Spain and Portugal). You seem to be implying that the people we now consider Latin Americans were the same people who organized and managed the slave trade. Please, respond.

What does the sale of enslaved Africans to Arab traders have to do with the state of slavery in the US? In fact, what does the history of slavery in Latin America have to do with slavery in the US? Saying, "Country X is worse than Country Y" or "People Z were complicit in Country Y's awful thing" does not lesson Country Y's actions, nor does it justify Country Y. Please, illuminate us with what your point was.

You claim that slavery has existed for tens of thousands of years. This may be true, but I do not believe that there is evidence of slavery going back that far, especially since slavery is not likely to be an institution in pre-agricultural societies (which date back only about 11,000 years).

You also claim "The USA is the country which used this institution during much [a] shorter period than any one [sic] else." This is either misleading or false. It's misleading because the USA only dates back to the 1780s (or 17th century if you want to count the initial English colonies). It's false because Italy and Germany (as well as other countries) never had slavery, since Italy and Germany only date back to 1860 and 1871 respectively. So, it either misleading or technically incorrect. It also fails to miscolor the nature of slavery in American history as opposed to, say, medieval Europe, where slavery existed but only on a very small scale (and remember, please, serfs are not slaves). The scale of slavery in the Americas in the 18th and 19th centuries was on a scale that had not been seen since the helots in Lacedaemonia (which was on a relatively large scale if not absolutely large scale).

Please, do not misrepresent history. It is an awful thing to do. History ought to be remembered as it was.

I'll try to respond to your complaints as shortly as possible:
Cuba wasn't independent when they introduced slavery – and so were not the 13 colonies which became USA later. Cuba retained slavery after becoming independent of the Spanish Empire, and so did the 13 colonies after becoming independent from the British Empire. So you've just made a straw man for yourself ("Country X is worse than Country Y" or "People Z were complicit in Country Y's awful thing" does not lesson Country Y's actions, nor does it justify Country Y”). I never told anything like what you imply.
“Slavery was of the very stuff of Europe for thousands upon thousands of years, until Europe engaged upon that considerable moral experiment called The Faith, which many believe now accomplished and discarded.” (Hilaire Belloc)
To your question what does the sale of enslaved Africans to Arab traders have to do with the state of slavery in the US?
First, a counter-question: why you omit Portuguese and Dutch traders from the equation? You think Arabs are offended by my mentioning of them, so you rash into affirmative action? And you don't care about Europeans?
Then, the answer to your question: The theory that “superior races” invading a land either drove out the original inhabitants or reduced them to slavery, is one that has no argument either from our present knowledge of man's mind or from recorded evidence. There was no question of making subject races into slaves by the might of conquering races.
And last but not least: don't you lecture me how to interpret history since you yourself are trying to use it as a staple for your pseudo progressive propaganda.

Unless there is some controversy about dates, the Spanish themselves abolished slavery in Cuba by 1886. They had abolished slavery in all of their colonies except Cuba, Puerto Rico and Santo Domingo by 1811. The last War of Independence against the Spaniards that finally resulted in Cuban Independence was started in 1895 with US intervention in 1898. Slavery had already been abolished before then. US itself had abolished slavery before then but Cuba didn't become independent until later.

Not sure what this argument is about. A lot of people exploited slaves in history. A lot of countries did not. It is a fact of history but not necessarily something to be proud of.

If one were to pick a country or two that were consistent and early in opposition to slavery it was England and France.

The criticism against Southern states from many comes from the fact that the Northern states individually started to abolish slavery along with the movements going on elsewhere in Europe in late 18th century. Of course, their economies didn't rely on slaves as the Southern economies did, so it can be said that it was easier for them to do so on humanitarian grounds while the economies and individual wealth of many landowners in the South would have been destroyed if they had abolished slavery along with the North.

While it is understandable from an economic perspective, it was a blight from a humanitarian point of view, not something one can run away from nor does it make sense to say we were not the last.

However, it must be pointed out that not all land owners in the South were of the same opinion. Many had voluntarily freed slaves even if their states didn't adopt abolition. Many landowners treated their slaves more like serfs than slaves. So not everyone in the South can be stereotyped.

What is actually more shameful in the history of blacks in the US even more than slavery (which can be argued is the product of economics and the sign of times) is the horrible treatment of post-slavery blacks by explicitly racist segments of the population with segregation, murder, torture, etc, well into the 20th century.

Of course, the South has had to bear most of the criticism of this because of the number of incidents from the denser blacker population in the Southern States. There is no getting away from that past or trying to justifying it either.

It would be wrong to think this as a Liberal/Conservative/Progressive issue. It was more of a regional issue because of the history. Moreover, the definition of liberal/conservative has changed sufficiently from those days to make such accusations meaningless.

Of course the Northern Liberals now relish rubbing the face of Southern Conservatives of that past which makes the Southerners and Conservatives defensive and dig their heels in rather than acknowledging the shameful past wherever it occurred and moving on. So both contribute equally to this problem like rabid Football team fans.

Some Southern historians and intellectuals have conjectured that the loss in the Civil War, led to an inward retreat in the region because there was no unifying ideology or economic leadership to hang their hat on to replace and move on from the past and so religion was the only thing that filled that void which explains the current demographics. Plausible theory but difficult to prove or disprove.

I pushed 'Recommend' button on your post, and would like to add just one remark: to blame today's people of any persuasion for, as you put it, "the shameful past" is extremely silly, as well as to transfer the stereotypes of 200 years ago on the population of contemporary Southern states.
Those bad, bad Southerners of the shameful past are not Methushaels, to live for 930 years; many of their descendants have left South and live all over the USA and beyond; and even those who still live over there are not responsible for their ancestors bad deeds, nor can they be praised for their good ones.

So, Common Man has already pointed out how you are wrong about Cuba. I simply want to state that I agree with his dates. Also, saying (and I am paraphrasing) "Cuba had slaves longer than the US, where its existence was brief" does imply that the US is less morally culpable than Cuba in slavery. What I said was (again, paraphrasing) "Cuba was not in charge of itself or its slave trade, Spain was." Do you see how those two statements are different?

You're quote from Belloc proves nothing. You could claim that religion helped abolish slavery, but the fact is that slavery was still widespread in Christian Russia (though not as widespread as in the Americas in the 18th and 19th centuries or antique Rome) and Christian Rome/Byzantium. Christian traders also saw no problem in engaging in the slave trade in the 17th-19th centuries when importing slaves to their colonies (or before that - the Venetians were large scale slave traders, though most of the destinations of those slaves was non-European). Of course, I'm assuming by "The Faith", you and Belloc mean Christianity - if you really mean something else, I'd be happy to hear it.

Also, as Common Man points out, economic concerns are often a large contributor to the decline of slavery (it was in Imperial Rome and Medieval Europe - the correlation witht he rise of Christianity is just that, a correlation).

You're simply reading too much into the question. Feel free to include whomsoever you want into the list of "Why does it matter?"

Also, your answer is very confusing. Let me see if I understand it. You seem to be saying that the idea of one "race" driving out or reducing another to slavery has no basis in history or in psychology. You also say that it was a given that this always happened. Is the difference that there are no such thing as "superior races" who conquer places? But then you feel free to use the term "subject race" in your explanation of what actually took place, so I doubt that is the case. Please, better explain yourself.

In either case, though, I doubt this answer actually justifies how other countries/peoples having slavery justifies or lessens it in one country.

And I should lecture you on history, since you flat out lied (about Cuba) and misrepresented facts (please, tell me how you can justify saying that the USA had slavery for a shorter period than any other country).

Sabellico, the 13 colonies were not in charge of themselves when the slavery was introduced as well as Cuba wasn't. When you describe slavery in Russia, you forget about state slavery in which peasantry was kept the biggest part of the 80 years of Communist rule there, as well as slave labor camps organized and exploited by the same Marxist junta.

This is the last time I engage in reasoning with you, because you obviously as divorced from reason as you are fond of ideology peddling.

This is the old Bolshevist tactic, and race victimhood industry is the favorite playground for today's neo-Bolsheviks.

Here is from yesterday news: a consultant group Gherush-92 working with the United Nations on issues of racism and discrimination, says that Dante's Divine Comedy should be removed from school curricula and university reading lists because it's racist, homophobic, anti-Islamist and anti-Semitic.

The Divine Comedy has been written in the beginning of 14th century - almost 700 years ago. Slavery in Americas (without segregating the US specifically for blame) was common about 200 years ago. It is as reasonable to condemn today's Southerners for what has happened then, as it is justifiable to expect a classic poet of 700 years ago would have professed the moronic convictions of today's PC brigade. Same goes for the idea of compensating (either materially or through affirmative action) for old grievances the descendants of one time slaves. As a group, on the base of race only.

How about more than 1 million white Europeans perished as slaves in Asia and North Africa?

You have to read the real history about slaves from antiquity. Even Joseph in the bible was sold by his family so one cannot say slavery does not exist before the Arabian, Indian and the recent Transatlantic Slave trade.

In fact, to say that some of the slaves were not sold by chiefs or their relatives in untrue, but majority (85%) of them were not sold by Africans but were captured by Europeans, Americans and their agents. It is interesting to note that the Europeans and Americans always use this to runaway from the truth. Some of the oral histories are still said in most communities in Africa! There is a saying that unless the lion has it own historian, the hunter will always be the hero.

On the other hand, slavery that existed since antiquity was not like what happened recently in North America and Latin American. Those Africans who sold their people had no other idea of what their people were going to be used for more that the type of slavery that existed in the bible or on their lands. In Africa slaves were not discriminated against. Slaves even rose true the ranks in the societies and became leaders of empires in their masters land without any prejudice.

What I find morally wrong was the type of slavery that was invented during the Transatlantic slave trade i.e human beings were treated like animals or less than animals which has never happen in history. Apart from that, the use of the Bible to justified the slave trade and also to brainwash a whole generation and civilization of a race.

People should stop hiding under the cover those lies that Africans sold themselves and take affirmative actions to make the world a better place to live!!! Africans are now discerning!!!

You say, "majority (85%) of them were not sold by Africans but were captured by Europeans, Americans and their agents".
.
Well, this is not unreal, or slovenly, or distorted history - it's a brazen lie. The truth is, slavery existed and was the main economic and social stalwart of humankind long before antiquity. African societies were not exemption. People over there traded in slaves for thousands upon thousands of years, and some of them continue to do it now.
.
If by "agents" of Europeans and Americans in slave trade you mean Arab middlemen, you're right. African slave owners used to sell their merchandise of born slaves and captives of the endless tribal wars to the Arab wholesalers, Arab wholesalers resold them to mainly Portugal and Dutch merchants, and those transported them to Americas - biggest part to Latin America, and the rest to the North.
.
Methinks you either don't know nothing about history or, more probably, peddle propaganda shit. Boring, too.

Westerner's shouldn't puff up with too much pride. Montana’s chief federal judge, Richard Cebull, has demonstrated that there are plenty of old white males who are feeling their herditary priveledges threatened by demography. One might hope that the tattered remains of honor and intellectual honesty will convince these relicts to get out of the way. But speaking as an old white guy, I wouldn't expect to see the self serving beliefs of a lifetime alter.

This article is a great example of how easy it is to manipulate statistics.

Per the Pew survey, Alabama has one of the highest rates of marriage between whites and blacks. 2.5% of Alabama marriages were white/black, the national average is 1.7%. The South in general had a white/black marriage rate of 2.3%. Still higher than the national average.

The South may have the lowest approval rating of approval of white/black marriage, but it has BY FAR the highest white/black marriage rate. Meanwhile, New York has a significantly larger overall population, and their population is only 44% white (versus Alabama being 69% white). And yet, they have a much lower rate of white/black marriage than Alabama.

Alabama does fall below the national average in terms of total % of marriages between people of different skin color, with 8% compared to the national average of 15%. However, that 15% is skewed by the West; and the averages of the other regions are only 11, 12, and 14%. Alabama really doesn't lag much farther behind.

The outlier high rate of intermarriage in the West is attributable to very large populations of hispanic people in CA or AZ, and to what I assume are Japanese people and Hawaiian Natives in Hawaii. These aren't really even very obvious intermarriages. People of Hispanic, Hawaiian and Japanese descent have white skin.

Also, how are Alabama and Mississippi "extremely segregated, residentially, economically, culturally and politically," but Vermont and Maine get a pass even though they are essentially all white? Giving VT and ME a pass, but pointing fingers at Alabama and Mississippi because they contain areas that are all white is stupid, considering the fact that Vermont and Maine are two giant all-white areas.

Are Alabama and Mississippi more racist? Maybe, but the sweeping conclusions drawn by this article do not follow from the evidence presented. Again, Alabama and Mississippi's geographic segregation say no more about their racism than Vermont and Maine's COMPLETE EXCLUSION of all non-whites says about their racism.

A better metric would be the per-capita number of rebel flags hung on walls or flagpoles in a State.

The difference is that Vermont and Maine aren't segregated the way the South was segregated. Black people are in the South because they were forcibly relocated there, that they weren't forcibly relocated to Maine and Vermont does not reflect poorly on those states. Similarly, there was migration to large industrial cities in the North, which Maine and Vermont do not have. Maine and Vermont are all white by accident not active segregationist policies as is the case in the South (and other parts of the North).

Furthermore, New York does have a lower "white" population but it does not have a lower black population, generally the south has anywhere between 3 to 5 times the African American population as the rest of the country yet we only see an increase in the white black marriage rate, of a little under twice as much, in the absence of racism, you'd expect it to scale evenly.

Also, Native Hawaiians have white skin? Have you seen any pictures of what Pacific Islanders look like?

Take the Pacific North West then. Why were there so few black people, because for a long time they were "white only" states. I had never thought of white supremacist groups as a reality before I moved there, from the South. It was also a stronghold of the Klan back in the day. Even Harry Byrd had those people run out of Virginia.

That does not mean, however, that people from the Pacific North West can be dismissed as bigots. That is the worst kind of prejudice, labeling an entire group because of an ignorant few. Why will it vote for Obama while South Carolina won't: because Obama is a President who uses the NLRB to force Boeing to keep factories in Washington rather than opening them in South Carolina.

As a lifelong native of the Pacific Northwest, I'm surprised you saw white supremacists out here. That said are you talking about the actual Pacific Part, (The Oregon and Washington coast west of the Cascades) or the rural farm country part, (everything east of the Cascades + Idaho.) The second bit is part of the South now (As evidenced by the prevalence of the Stars and Bars on bumper stickers. It's sad, the North won the war but the South gained more territory. Also, Idaho is apparently where Neo Nazis go to retire.)

The low prevalence of black people in Washington state is simply a result of being 1000 miles further from the South than say Chicago or New York. Just like the low proportion of Armenians in America is due to being really far from Armenia. It's when people should be living close together and mixing, yet they don't, that you can make an inference about racism.

It was literally illegal to go there if you were not white. That is going to affect diversity. Also, look at the history of the West Coast when it comes to Asian Americans. Racism isn't just white-black. The Klan was big in Washington and Oregon back in the day, although most of the violence was directed at the Chinese.

And yeah, I lived on the coast side. There are some people who are a little bit off out there in the rural areas, as you get away from Seattle and it's suburbs.

In the South you see the stars and bars everywhere. It's on the same level as the Duke's of Hazard. Outside of the south, it isn't about southern pride. Yeah, I remember driving through Idaho and wondering what was going on. When you see the stars and bars out there, it's a little scary.

But that's the point. Your experience of the Pacific Northwest wasn't one of racism, and neither was mine of growing up in the South. I never lived through Massive Resistance, and the schools I went to weren't racially segregated at all. Before I left the South, I had had no idea of the incredibly prejudiced idea that people had of the region, and by inference me, that didn't bear the slightest resemblance to anything I knew. I had also never met white kids who had had no interactions with black kids before. It was truly staggering.

The Pacific Northwest has a history, and it has a few bigots, and yet the idea of it being a region, and everyone in it being racists is absurd. I wish people would say the same about the South.

New Conservative writes: "Black people are in the South because they were forcibly relocated there, that they weren't forcibly relocated to Maine and Vermont does not reflect poorly on those states."
.
This is pure nonsense. Black people you're speaking about WERE NOT forcibly relocated to the South, their great-grandparents were. For several generations no one (forcibly, administratively) prevented black people from moving to Maine or Vermont.
.
It's akin to the treatment the former Palestinian Arabs demand: several generations of them are born in a bunch of different countries (all of them Arab, too), and they still claim to be refugees. Not so with any other kind of refugees, and the 20th century saw a lot of them: Indian, German, Greek, Turkish, Bulgarian, Jewish... you name them.

This should be pretty easy to test quantitatively. You know how the population breaks down by race, so you can calculate what intermarriage rates would look like if they were completely race neutral. You can then compare that to the actual intermarriage rate. The difference between the projected and actual rate of intermarriage would tell you something about preference for or aversion to interracial marriage.

"generally the south has anywhere between 3 to 5 times the African American population as the rest of the country yet we only see an increase in the white black marriage rate, of a little under twice as much, in the absence of racism, you'd expect it to scale evenly."

This is an absurd conclusion. There is nothing to support the conclusion that "absent racism, black/white marriage rates scale evenly." And with what, may I ask? What is the magical non-racist black/white marriage rate for a State that has a population that is 60% white and 20% black? Does anything under that magic number mean the State is racist?

I thought, let's use Asians and White people as a control group, since there hasn't really been widespread anti Asian feeling for a very long time.

Unfortunately, there is no state with a 20% Asian 60% white breakdown but California at 13% Asian and 57% White is pretty close. In that case, 4.7% percent of marriages were between white people and Asians.

Now, let's look at a state in the South like North Carolina, with 21.5% black 68.5% white. The marriage rate is only 3.2% for marriages between whites and blacks, despite having more of both.

What the cause is, we can't know, but it does seem that black and white marriages happen less frequently than other matches.

My point was that natural movement of people is not sufficient to undue the population dynamics caused by the initial concentration in the South.

You have two places, Maine and Mississippi. 200 years ago lots of Black people were forcibly relocated to Mississippi, and none were moved to Maine. Some of their descendants have since moved about, but it's ridiculous to expect that initial population difference to disappear.

Right, but you're assuming that no one in California is racist against asians. That's my point, you'd have to find the baseline "non-racist" ratio of white/black marriages to to total marriages. You can't do that.
I know you're not saying this, but saying that California's white/asian rate is 4.7%, but NC's white/black rate is 3.2%, and therefore NC is racist, is absurd. Literally no inferences can be drawn from this comparison.
Also, I'm assuming you don't live in the South. If you did, you would know that there is a lot of pressure on from within the AA community for black people to marry other black people. No one here really cares, we get along fine. The only people who seem to care are rich, highly educated (ironically) white people who live in 100% white states like Oregon, Vermont, etc., or very wealthy, 100% white communities in places like California.

And the "projected intermarriage rate" would be as convincing and "scientifically based" as the imminent demise of white bears is.
.
Put together a computer model with predetermined output and dish around several grants to "affiliated" sociologists... organize some "peer reviews"... hopla! "Southerners are racist hillbillies" is not an aloof Lefty slur anymore, science is settled about this 'objective' fact and there is wide scientific consensus to top it all!

"Steve Steverson" was speculating on the effect of racial prevalence on intermarriage rates; all I am saying is that you don't need to speculate, you can calculate. A reasonably numerically literate citizen with a few hours to kill and spreadsheet could figure this out using the data from the Pew report plus Census data, all publically available. Of course, if you'd just like to continue to trade partisan barbs, don't let me stop you.

First off, the calculation is wrong. As RR and I pointed out, it doesn't take into account the higher propensity to have marry someone of a different color when there ain't so many people who look like you around. If anything, the effect should be greater than that as communities become large enough to agglomerate.
-
Coming from NC, I find the focus on Black/White marriages alone absurd, as those horrible anti-miscegenation laws applied to Indians as well. The fight for civil rights was about the Battle of Hayes Pond, as well as the march in Birmingham. It's a shame how the Cherokee and Lumbee are completely ignored in the history of race in the south.
-
Also, other parts of the country are more heavily white, as they enforced racist white only laws. As I pointed out, the fact that NW states had laws making it literally illegal to move there if you weren't white doesn't make them less racist. There was also the Chinese Exclusion Act, Japanese Internment, and a whole series of anti-Asian laws. Also, Lincoln had to have the Union army lecture New York about tolerance right after Gettysburg.
-
Finally, DiA's slapdash assumptions are completely wrong. The South is not geographically segregated compared to the north. It has consistently low dissimilarity indexes (with the exception of St. Louis and Miami). It is also not more economically segregated. Alabama and Mississippi are too poor across the board to be economically segregated like CA or NY. It is precisely because of the opposite of DiA's claim that there was racial tension. The most economically and residentially integrated areas were the worst during Massive Resistance. In VA it was Norfolk and the Tidewater where things got bad, not the western or northern parts of the state. Racial tension happens when there are people of different races who have to find some way to get along. In Detroit, all the white people just left. That doesn't mean it has fewer problems with race.

No, I don't want to trade partisan barbs.
I'm trying to tell, that behind your suggestion to calculate the effect of racial prevalence on intermarriage is the totally false, even ridiculous premise that non-interracial marriages can be seen as some sort of plebiscite on the race issue.
.
A peaceful (as opposed to terror) bird from the South whispered to me that 99.9% of black/black, white/white and extraterrestrial/extraterrestrial marriages are contracted because of factors which have nothing to do with race... sometimes so feeble as love, for instance, or convenience, or... you name it.
.
And after you did, try to calculate it in your model.

No, terror bird, you cannot "calculate" how racist a State is by looking at its black/white marriage rate. A "reasonably numerically literate citizen" would recognize the problem in trying to do so: you don't have a baseline, "non-racist" rate to compare it to. And, you can't find one because there is not one available. You'd have to find a utopian State where there is zero racism, prejudice, bigotry, and bias. There is not one.

Also, even if you could, there are so many other variables at play that you couldn't get anything meaningful out of the comparison anyway. For example, Jewish people tend to marry other Jewish people. They do so for religious reasons, not because they hate all non-Jews. If you had a utopian State where no one was racist, and it was 60% white people and 40% black people, but all the white people were Jews, you'd still have a pretty low intermarriage rate because not very many black people are Jewish.

Certainly, one can note that there are cultural implications within one of the subject groups which carry a lot of gravity on the topic. It's easy to claim anti-black racism by whites, just because of past history and some statistics and preconceived notions. However, there are some details to consider, which flow in the opposite direction - I don't claim these as "racist," per se, but these exist.

First, think about black-black marriage statistics. They're typically lower than white-white, or most other groups. The reason for this is another debate, but for now, let's just take that as a known factor.

Second, look for rates of white man-black woman marriage, vs black man-white woman marriage. Culturally, black women are just as averse to marrying white men as white men are to marrying black women. Some may call it "betraying your race," or whatever, but it is a common situation. Meanwhile, white women and black men are certainly more likely to get together, but unfortunately, rates of black men getting married at all are lower across the board, and this category suffers just as black-black marriage does. Again, the reasons are another debate.

One could call all these detracting cultural factors "racist." That certainly seems to be the default word. But it's entirely possible that these are simple cultural artifacts, similar to higher rates of "homophobia" among blacks, and consequent lower rates of gay black men - those who have come out anyway.

This from a Houstonian who went to a majority black school in the suburbs. Maybe racism was never "convenient," but one can observe a lot just by watching.

Whether Californians are racist against Asians doesn't matter. The point is that SC is more racist towards blacks than Californians are towards Asians, as measured by the intermarriage rate. The absence of a "non-racist" baselines just makes SC look artificially "good" (though still not that good) in a sense. But in my experience anti-Asian racism in California is low enough that this is not a large effect anyway.

You can also argue whether the intermarriage rate is really a good measure of racist attitudes, since it is also affected by segregation (you don't marry people you never meet). But in a way this is also part of the problem.

Again, not quite. With these statistics it is impossible to conclude that SC is more racist towards blacks than CA is towards asians because of differences in their intermarriage rates.

To determine whether a state is racist based on its relative intermarriage rate, you would have to know what the rate would be if no one in the state were racist and compare it to that. Because you cannot find a baseline, non-racist marriage rate, NO INFERENCES regarding racism can be drawn from these statistics.

You MAY be right in saying that the absence of the baseline makes SC look artificially good. It may also make them look artificially bad. We don't know because we don't have a baseline. You're assuming it makes them look artificially good because you, like the article writer, are assuming that South Carolinians are racist.

Again, not quite. With these statistics it is impossible to conclude that SC is more racist towards blacks than CA is towards asians because of differences in their intermarriage rates.

To determine whether a state is racist based on its relative intermarriage rate, you would have to know what the rate would be if no one in the state were racist and compare it to that. Because you cannot find a baseline, non-racist marriage rate, NO INFERENCES regarding racism can be drawn from these statistics.

You MAY be right in saying that the absence of the baseline makes SC look artificially good. It may also make them look artificially bad. We don't know because we don't have a baseline. You're assuming it makes them look artificially good because you, like the article writer, are assuming that South Carolinians are racist.

I think your reasoning is too restrictive. New Conservative showed that the Black minority in SC represents a larger fraction of the total population than the Asian minority in California. It should follow that the corresponding intermarriage rate should be higher in SC than in California, all other things being equal.

In other words, even without knowing what the SC intermarriage rate should be, one can still conclude that it must be higher than California's. The fact that it is lower is already evidence for bias. The fact that we don't have an absolute reference (a completely race-neutral version of SC) only means we cannot quantify the exact value of the bias.

Maybe there is an alternative explanation for that bias, other than segregation or racist attitudes (i.e. a reason why the rate should be lower in SC than California, even in the absence of these), but I can't think of any.

This is not my reasoning, it's just a fact - something anyone could learn in a statistics class. They should teach statistics in high school. That way less people would be fooled by people trying to manipulate statistics to make an ideological point.

First, you're comparing an orange to an apple. Second, the absence of a baseline, non-racist rate of intermarriage means that we cannot tell if SC, or any other State, is racist based on this statistic.

Again, YOU ARE ASSUMING SC IS FULL OF RACISTS when you say that the lack of a baseline rate "only means we cannot quantify the exact value of the bias." That statement presumes SC has some bias, and the only question is how much. It may be that SC's black/white intermarriage rate is higher than the baseline non-racist rate. Also, it could be that California's white/asian rate is actually lower than the non-racist rate. That seems unlikely, but we don't know. We don't know because we don't have that rate. We don't have that rate because there are too many other variables to calculate it.

There are hundreds of other variables, but I want to point out one - there is a lot of pressure on black people from the black community to marry within the community. That's fine. What's not fine is people like yourself and the person who wrote this article assuming that black people are just DYING to marry white people and they only reason they can't is that white people are racist.

are you saying the Paciic North West is racist? You have that very wrong! I was raised in Bremerton, WA and currently live in richland,WA we are in no way racist and a BLACK man would get a job easily over in the seatlle area and in no way be littled or thaught negatively about. Iam a white woman married(2yrs) to a BLACK man with 4 beatuiful children!

Americans took a random, chance event (i.e. interracial marriages) and turned it into a FAD! Kinda like getting a tattoo but with less permanent effects. When excitement in THAT pathetic attempt to draw attention started to wane a bit, Americans upped the score by giving us INTERGENDER marriages.

Now that the audacious popularity of even THAT has started to lose some steam, I can see where THIS is going NEXT; INTERSPECIES MARRIAGES!

On the other hand, questioning status quo and pushing the existing boundaries without remaining a slave to the past is a relatively unique characteristic of the US culture that has allowed them to make great advances in many dimensions including technology, a number of sports, etc. For example, I don't think the Europeans would be snow-boarding on the alps, or seeing so many 3D movies in theaters/TV or Asians reading this on a tablet right now if it wasn't for that characteristic even if there are status quo proponents in the US itsef.

Perhaps, this would be a good place and time to distinguish between bias, prejudice, bigot and racist since these terms seem to be used indiscriminately and some of the comments on either side seem way over top?

Having an opinion against inter-racial marriages is not being a racist. It is simply a bias against it. It doesn't imply that it is irrational either. One may even have a rational argument as to why inter-racial marriages may not work based on socio-economic. cultural, and other differences. The argument may be strong/weak and may be judged as such but that doesn't imply racism.

So, the PPP poll results simply show a higher bias in these states against inter-racial marriages and that may come from any number of reasons. Nothing wrong with that. The poll results don't say the Southerners who are against inter-racial marriages are necessarily racist.

If a person with that bias has an opinion about anyone in inter-racial marriages or born from it without knowing/considering anything else about such a person, then that person is prejudiced. This is not a positive trait since the person is making preconceived judgments about such people. To detect this, one would have to ask questions such as, "can a person in an inter-racial relationship or born in an inter-racial relationship be a good President, or be moral or be smart", etc.

The polls on whether one's religion (or lack of it) is a dominant issue for a candidate expose prejudice if it exists. People who are prejudiced in terms of race aren't necessarily racist.

If a person considers only their belief and prejudices and rejects all other alternatives and is intolerant of such, such a person is a bigot. Santorum is a religious bigot but neither a racist nor a racial bigot.

A racist would not only be biased, prejudiced and likely a bigot with respect to the supremacy of one race over another but also believe it is acceptable to act on it with discrimination like voting for/against a candidate based on the race.

It is extremely difficult to figure out if someone is a racist because it is never the only parameter and why racism is so difficult to detect and root out. Racists don't come with arm bands saying so.

None of the polls cited make any determination other than whether the people polled are biased in their view of inter-racial marriages.

So, I really don't understand the attempt to paint these states as racist because of such polls or the overly-defensive reactions against such a charge both of whom seem to be making the same erroneous judgment.

One can have their own bias and prejudice against people who are biased and prejudiced about inter-racial marriages of course!

What is unfortunate really is that politicians on both sides try to exploit the biases and prejudices of the population to make them act as bigots or racists.

I meant to say Gallup poll rather than PPP poll in the third para above.
In the context of the above, there is a problem in the way the question has been asked by PPP which is where the bias of the pollster becomes a problem.
"Should inter-racial marriages be illegal" provides no reasonable answer to those that may disapprove of inter-racial marriages for defensible reasons but don't think of it as a legal issue and therefore forces people to take a racist view or seem like approving it. Some people who disapprove inter-racial marriages may have answered no because they understood the difference.
In this regard, this poll IS designed to elicit a racist response (i.e., acting on a bias) by design by eliminating choice of answers and depending on people answering in an emotional fashion to such a loaded question.
This is what I mean by politicians and their affiliates exploiting the bias and prejudices to force people into bigotry or racism. Both sides exploit it.
Note that the Gallup poll, on the other hand, simply asks for approval or disapproval (i.e., a bias), not whether it should be made illegal.

This is nonsense. Give me a reason for opposition to interracial marriage. An actual reason. I read the paragraph that speaks nonsense about "based on socio-economic. cultural, and other differences" - and I'm not quoting to make fun of your typing because I mistype too. That is ridiculous.
The poll asks if it should be illegal. That means against the law. It means a crime punishable by fines and/or imprisonment. This is a textbook example of racism: differentiating between races with the force of law behind it to enforce some personal ideas about how people should live their lives. Give me an argument for making interracial marriage a crime. There is no rational argument.
You seem, at best, to define racism as narrowly as possible to make your non-point. Racism isn't legally putting someone at risk. It isn't making their conduct illegal. It isn't you deciding how their personal lives should run. No, it's whether a person can be somehow exactly described as thinking "others" are worse than them. In that absurd definition, segregation and separate but equal would be fine because that doesn't mean blacks are worse, just that whites don't want to sit next to them on the bus or drink from the same fountain. There is no real line in what you're saying. It's just the latest cover-up for racists to pretend they're not racist.
Now that I've read your reply to yourself, all I can say is you're wiggling around like a pinned butterfly. The question was clear. If an adult doesn't know what a crime is, that's the adult's fault. That you blame the pollster is absurd. The question did not ask "Do you disapprove of interracial marriage?" Your argument is shameful.

Goes to prove that knee-jerking is not limited to any one side. :-) There is no accommodation in your world for someone being objective even if that person approves of inter-racial marriage and opposes people who are racists about it. Because I challenged the poll question, it means I am excusing racists or justifying racist behavior? I see no difference between you and some of the bigots in the South then.

Seems to me you got confused by my mistyping in the first post and ranted but unable to look at it again in the context of my correction.

I corrected (before your response) the first post where I meant to say Gallup instead of PPP poll. So what wiggling? The Gallup poll did not ask about making it illegal. The answers to such a poll do NOT demonstrate racism, only a bias.

I agreed with you that an affirmative answer to a question of making it illegal demonstrates racism, so most of your rant makes no sense.

However, I pointed out why such a question is a loaded one because it gave no choice for those that may disapprove it (as in not doing it themselves or discouraging their children for example but not making it illegal). Given the choices of yes/no, some people who are racists answer yes, some people who are biased but not racist think the answer no is the same as approving it and so say yes, people who disapprove but don't think it should be illegal say no, etc. So the poll unlike the Gallup poll is designed to elicit an extreme response. Something tells me you would have the same reaction as mine to a poll question from the other side that elicited an answer YOU didn't like. The knee-jerk demonstrates that objectivity is not your strength.

The definitions are not mine. You can look up in a good dictionary.

There are many people even in most ethnic minorities who believe that marriages between two disparate families/castes/classes/cultures/background are all barriers to a good marriage. You can agree/disagree with them but that belief alone doesn't make them racist. It is their view of what makes marriages succeed. In that view, two races typically imply some of those differences and hence opposed to it for the same reason in general. They would be prejudiced if they looked at two people who were alike in all such respects which they felt were important and yet disapproved it for skin color alone, for example. They would be racist if they acted on that prejudice, for example to make it illegal.

Wielding the label of racism should be done carefully so as not to hurt the cause of eradicating it.

If you are asking for a reason that would be true for ANY two inter-racial couple, then there wouldn't be one. That isn't the point.

You may also be looking for a reason related only to skin color, if so there isn't one. That isn't the point either.

The point is why someone may not want inter-racial marriage for themselves or for their children or have an opinion that it wouldn't work for others like them. This needs to be understood very clearly because it is trivial to find people amongst you who think that way. So I am surprised people are even asking this question.

Go and talk to some ethnic adults preferably married (Jewish, Chinese, Indian, Japanese even if they are not religious) on what they prefer regarding marriages and more than 70% would likely prefer a marriage within their own because of shared culture, heritage, values, etc.. which they believe is important for a long-term relationships.

I may not agree with this but I cannot say I have the solution for what makes for a guaranteed long-term relationship either (if I did, I would bottle it and become a billionaire). So everyone is free to have their own concept of what makes a marriage work. It is not unreasonable for some people to think that the chances of a marriage lasting are higher if some of those things are shared between the couple. This belief exists even in the mainstream white population (certainly amongst the conservatives) but perhaps not as much as the ethnic groups.

This criterion of shared things is not necessarily considering race. The race only becomes relevant to them in the sense that people from two races are less likely to satisfy those shared criterion unless the two involved grew up in extremely similar circumstances. This homogenization will happen some day in the US but it is not close to being there yet.

So if you ask these same people if they approve inter-racial marriages, they are likely to say no BECAUSE they believe that such marriages are unlikely to have enough common things to survive, regardless of what races are involved. This isn't necessarily any bias or prejudice towards race but on what two people from different races may have grown up with. So race is just an indicator not the reason.

Are you denying such people exist or do you think they are racists because of it? If the latter, then there is a need to look at one's own bigotry.

But people vary in what they are going to do with such beliefs which is the point of this thread.

They are all to some extent biased against inter-racial marriages for the reasons above. It may stop there or they may be prejudiced enough to judge any inter-racial marriage for the same reasons. For them to be racists, it would require them to judge one race as somehow being better than another as the reason why they do not approve such marriages. Most people who may not approve of inter-racial marriages will not have such a racist view at all. Shared criterion does not imply better.

Calling all of the above types racists because of a world view some people have that it is either approve or be a racist is as simplistic and bigoted a view as the Southerners are being accused of.

It just goes to show that bigotry is not a monopoly of the Conservatives. Liberals can be as fanatical, biased, prejudiced and bigoted about their own world views as well.

Your arguments sounds convincing on the surface. However,the casual assumption that two Americans would see each other as culturally different based on skin color may not be explicitly racist as you argue but its still worrisome.Also, people often consider their culture not merely different but superior.

"Having an opinion against inter-racial marriages is not being a racist. It is simply a bias against it. It doesn't imply that it is irrational either. One may even have a rational argument as to why inter-racial marriages may not work based on socio-economic. cultural, and other differences. The argument may be strong/weak and may be judged as such but that doesn't imply racism."

Common Man - I believe what is being asked of you to to provide a "rational" argument against interracial marriages. While cultural/tribal beliefs may provide reason those reasons or beliefs may not be rational. Rationality and beliefs are two separate issues and I believe you may be mixing their meaning ... :-)

Go and talk to some ethnic adults preferably married (Jewish, Chinese, Indian, Japanese even if they are not religious) on what they prefer regarding marriages and more than 70% would likely prefer a marriage within their own because of shared culture, heritage, values, etc.. which they believe is important for a long-term relationships.

I believe I understand your point and your numerous examples such as above, however a strongly or weakly held belief is proof of rationality.

Here is why, in my opinion, your argument is thin - the concept of "races". There is only one race of humans - an argument based on the veracity of different races, while it may be a strongly held, time worn belief or preference, is irrational.

Why would it be worrisome? If you see an Indian, a Chinese, a black and a White on the streets of New York, there would be a very high probability that they grew up with different backgrounds, values, priorities, etc., to various degrees. That is reality.

I don't see a problem with those differences at all because I am not looking at it as one necessarily better than the other (and this is what worries many people). I am fine with cultures maintaining their identities (hopefully more of the good aspects). The world would be dull if everyone came out of the same cookie-cutter.

Of course, growing up in the same environment also means that those four share certain but not all experiences just as their skin color implies certain shared experiences in the environments in which they grew in.

There is nothing really wrong about any of the above UNTIL one starts to believe one skin color is necessarily better than another for a specific task/selection/suitability/etc and gets worse when one starts to discriminate based on that. That is what we need to weed out, not deny the existence of identities - personal, cultural, etc., that may be correlated with their upbringing and genetics. It is not any more different than recognizing that cultural differences exist between Christian households and Jewish households. Why shouldn't they exist?

The problem is that it is very hard for even well-meaning people to make that distinction and so they take the easy route of extremes - racism or total denial that differences do exist.

Yes, there can be cultural racists too. But not all people who recognize cultural differences are cultural racists and that is the point really.

I am not going to argue whether having an opinion that cultural differences matter in marriages or not is rational or irrational. It would be bigoted of you to believe that "it doesn't matter in any way" is rational and the opposite is irrational because I have not seen any proof one way or the other as to what definitely makes marriages work. There are a lot of parameters.

There are generations that have made marriages work with such "irrational beliefs". There are generations that have failed marriages with "rational beliefs" that cultural differences don't matter.

Given that there is no definite guarantee one way or the other, people use heuristics. Is it irrational to look for similar educational backgrounds, to look for similar tastes, hobbies, family values because they are all part of the human race after all? Pick any criterion anybody uses. None of them are irrational, they are just heuristics people use.

So far the above has nothing to do with race.

If race is taken as an indicator of a certain cultural/family upbringing, then it is no different from taking an educational qualification or a profession and assuming some things from it. One could be wrong about it, in the sense that a person does not fit the stereotype associated with a race just as one could be wrong about any criterion that you pick as an indicator of something. Why is race so different?

If I were to look at some of the mating selection rituals in this country for a lot of people where the ability to have a good time at a bar being drunk becomes the initial screening criterion in choosing a mate, you want to argue that is rational belief just because they didn't look at the race? One can poke holes in ANY criterion. The best one can do is use a set of heuristics. I am not suggesting which heuristic to use, let them choose whatever, it is their life and have those beliefs on what makes marriages work. If I try to impose my world view of beliefs on them, then I am no better than Santorum.

Now, in a world where the correlation between race and the upbringing characteristics typically associated with that race starts to approach zero (not just being in denial of a correlation), that heuristic starts to become ineffective and will eventually die on its own. It will take many decades of integration and assimilation from people who use different heuristics. Until then, it is just a heuristic like any other.

People really are uncomfortable about recognizing differences without it feeling "wrong", it seems. Why is that?

If it matters, all my relationships have been inter-racial because of the environments I have found myself in so clearly I am not using that heuristic for myself but my personal beliefs are irrelevant to this argument and how people judge others. But if anyone thinks the cultural differences that different races STILL come correlated with even in this day and age aren't relevant in relationships, I would strongly recommend taking off those rose-colored glasses and learning to acknowledge and deal with those differences. I can certainly understand if some people prefer not to introduce those complications into relationships. I wouldn't hold them as irrational or worse.

In attempting to make people skin-color-blind, it seems that we are trying to make them blind.

Or you can recognize that American culture is a potpourri of so many dimensions (one couldn't possibly adopt all) and people pick and choose what they want to be, some of which are shared across any boundaries, and some of which are linked to their heritage (where the skin color happens to be co-correlated).

I don't see why the restrictions you lament should necessarily happen because there are such cross-sectional identities.

There is a danger in assuming some common American Culture because too many bigots define it in such a narrow way and want every one to be within that. Santorum is an example of such a narrow definition which is why he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being elected.

The greatest thing about the US over almost any other country is that you can pick and choose whatever you want to be (as far as it is legal and you don't try to harm someone else for it) and while your choice may not be accepted everywhere in the US, you can always a find a place where it is and people allow you to live that choice (and if it is currently illegal, it is even possible to change some of that). The more countries one experiences, more one comes to appreciate this freedom. It is truly liberating.

This poll so obviously serves the Democratic party whose main instrument for political gain is to increase chasms in the society and then exploit them. In this case this is the black racial chasm.

Typical Left strategy, not surprising since the Democratic party is overtaken by the Left.

They subdivide society in groups and foment discontent. For women, they attack reproduction, using fakes like the one who was in “debate” with Rush Limbaugh. For Hispanics, they kowtow on the border. For blacks, they build the industry on victimhood. For the poor, they promise redistribution – never putting their own money where their big mouth is.

Still, I think there is a point in criticizing the Democratic Party for its corporatist strategies. It's tried to define certain groups as Democratic, attacking people for betraying their identity if they don't follow the same politics, or putting forward groups that "speak for" them, instead of letting people speak for themselves.

Corporatism isn't unique to the Democratic Party, every party does as teacup points out. I would say that Democrats are much better at it. I would also blame the Republican party for verging into American chauvinism on the other hand, although that at least a superiority complex that encompasses all Americans. As a Republican, I vaguely believe that Americans of any color, creed, or religion are morally superior to the French.

The racial divide in politics should worry anyone concerned about race in this country. It means that they are effectively absent from one of the two major parties of this country, while the other can take them for granted. I'm someone who really wants the Republican party to grow and be viable among blacks and Latinos, and I can feel an incredible amount of pushback both from Democrats and Republicans. It needs to be overcome somehow.

Harsh? Have a look couple of posts above: one of the 'progressive mandarinate' makes a point of what is and what isn't racist: "that doesn't mean blacks are worse, just that whites don't want to sit next to them on the bus or drink from the same fountain".
.
Never would one of them contemplate a situation where "blacks just don't want to sit next to [any other race] on the bus or drink from the same fountain". They'll shout to heavens that Obama's professor arrested in Massachusetts for disorderly behavior (by a BLACK cop, as a matter of fact - surely, Uncle Tom?) was a victim of institutional WHITE racism, and would never mention HIS OWN racist rant ('I lives to harass the white folks').
.
Mind you, I don't say that one sort of racism justifies the racism of the opposite vector. No, Common Man is right saying that racial prejudice becomes racism when one thinks it is acceptable to act on it in legal sense. But racial prejudice is natural: people naturally prefer their own. It may not be commendable, but the world isn't perfect, humans are not perfect, too - and both never will be. Millenarian ideas, either described in Das Kapital, or Mein Kampf, or Lennon's Imagine are just a political candy, at best, and poison, at worst.
.
So I do share your feelings about the French and am absolutely prepared that a Frenchie or two can think the same about Kiwis. It wouldn't prevent me from having a pint of bitter with them, and I would react decisively only if their obnoxious Prez decided to issue an edict (that is how they rule their country, right?) indiscriminately banning Kiwis from having affairs with French womenfolk.

Yeah, you're right. The truth is that there is a double standard, and I think we should just get used to it. The problems here are really with obnoxious liberals who like to shout Racism! for fun.

You'll always be able to find a few idiots from any group to complain about. To be fair, Obama never says that kinda blatant BS.

I don't know. I'm still hoping for the day when people really aren't judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. Anti-Catholic and Anti-Irish prejudice essentially died in this country (lucky me!). It could happen one day.

And yeah, a little patriotic chauvinism is fine, as long as we agree that it is a bit of a joke. That's why we have football teams.

You know there are egg-heads very seriously studying everything, jokes/humour included. One of them, Umberto Eco, states that ninety percent of jokes in any culture are based either on ethnic stereotypes or on er... digestive and procreative functions of the body.

While the statistics are real, and racism undoubtedly is the reason for the visceral hatred towards President Obama in various corners of the country, the poll wasn't run to question Mississippi and Alabama's vote or racial outlook. It was run to convince northern independents that only backwards southern racists back the republican party, and if you aren't a neanderthal, you have to vote democratic. In that respect, it's a bit of a low blow.

Wow, the anger here is really impressive. Republicans must be deeply in denial, or fear that if the root of their anxiety is revealed it will delegitimize their anti-welfare-for-anyone-but-us positions.

The Republican party has no intellectual basis for their positions or beliefs. The defining world view is a fear of The Other and backlash against the diminished oppression of everyone else by Protestant White men. They are terrified that someone else will do to them what they have done to everyone else for centuries.

The only way to maintain any semblance of respectability is to control the news media so that nothing but the dog-whistle code ever gets out. Simply stating their beliefs in plain language or, worse, hard numbers is a mortal threat. The Republican party is already the laughing stock of anyone paying attention: their fear-driven attempts to hold on to past privilege over everyone else *should* be laughed out of the room. No wonder the same people who rage against political correctness want to ensure no one ever talks about them.

Yes, we desperately want to uphold "the diminished oppression of everyone else by Protestant White men." -- especially those Republicans who are Catholic.

Or my wife -- who is not a white man, Protestant or otherwise.

Try this phrase: "The defining world view is a fear of the Other and backlash against the diminished oppression of everyone else by Jews." Sounds like hate-speech, huh? Well, insert "Protestant White Men" and, hey-presto, it passes for liberal tolerance. Which, by golly, in fact, it is!